Located in Jakarta, WANDCO has an efficient working team. The partners of the firm have at least ten years of working experience in the field of intellectual property. The firm is now serving more then 100 clients and handling a large number of cases for patent and trademark.

DHANU WARDHANA, BA.
IP CONSULTANT

Education:
Bachelor degree in Management Information System at California State University  Fullerton (BA., 1997).
Experiences:
As an Operational Manager at WINARTA IP PRACTICE, Mr. Wardhana is also an IT Manager at Law Firm Frans Winarta & Partners (2001-2011).
License:
Certified IP Consultant based on Official Decree of Minister of Law & Human Rights of Republic of Indonesia No. 303-2010
Languages:
English, Indonesian.

PATRICIA ANN WINARTA, BA., M.H.
IP CONSULTANT

Education:
Bachelor degree in Business Administration at California State University of Fullerton, majoring in marketing (BA., 1997); Master in Law at University of Pelita Harapan (M.H., 2007).
Experiences:
As a General Manager at WINARTA IP PRACTICE, Ms. Winarta is also a Director of Finance, Accounting & Human Resources at Law Firm Frans Winarta & Partners (1999-2011).
License:
Certified IP Consultant based on Official Decree of Minister of Law & Human Rights of Republic of Indonesia No. 402-2010
Languages:
English, Indonesian.

ADAM ZAIN

Education:
Potensi Utama University (Indonesia), majoring in Information Technology
Experience:
North Sumatran Central Statistical Agency, WINARTA IP PRACTICE.

Languages:
English, Indonesian

YENY RISNAWATI

Education:
Bachelor Degree of Economic at Jakarta State University (S.E. 2001)
Experiences:
Jakarta Taipei International School, AM BADAR & PARTNERS, Selektani Holticulture Indonesia, P.T., WINARTA IP PRACTICE.
Languages:
English, Indonesian

In handling intellectual property cases, we have engaged patent and trademark offices from other countries as our associates within their jurisdictions. Our good standing relationship with clients and associates is continued on a mutual cooperation basis.

Our clients and associates understand that all cases in our firm are handled strictly confidentially.

WANDCO Intellectual Property Rights

Jl. Casablanca Blok BJ No. 1, Bukit Gading Mediterania,

Kelapa Gading Permai, Jakarta Utara 14240 – INDONESIA

Phone : +62-21 4586 5885, 4585 4374, 4584 3789

Email : info@wandco-ip.com

Website : www.wandco-ip.com

Based on the official website of the Supreme Court, the decision was read on April 20, with a panel of judges consisting of Mieke Komar, Rehngena Purba and Abdul Kadir Mappong.

 
With the granting of the case registered under No.194 K/PDT.SUS/2011, it cancelled the decision of the Central Jakarta Commercial Court which rejected the lawsuit filed by Toyota against the software company.
In the decision at the Commercial Court in January, the panel of judges stated that Japanese company was not able to prove the arguments of its lawsuit against Lexus Daya Utama.

In the lawsuit, Toyota accused PT Lexus Daya Utama of registering its trademark whose pronunciation and sound were the same as those of the company‘s trademark.

In Indonesia, Toyota’s Lexus trademark has been registered since May 25, 1992, under registration No.275.609, which was renewed on May 25, 2002. Toyota believes that the registration of the Lexus trademark by Lexus Daya Utama is based on bad faith, i.e. to ride the fame of its Lexus trademark.

In addition, in the consideration of the panel at the district court rejected the Lexus lawsuit because both trademarks were registered to protect different types of goods. The Lexus trademark owned by Daya Utama is registered under No.IDM000232235 dated January 11, 2010, to protect goods in Class 9, i.e. all kinds of computers and their accessories, among others, software, computer disk, power supply, monitor, disk drive, mouse, keyboard, USB.
by Dewi Mayestika/bisnis

JAKARTA: Central Jakarta Commercial Court rejected the lawsuit to annul the Inter-Continental trademark filed by Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation, a company from the United States, against PT Lippo Karawaci Tbk.

In today’s trial verdict, the panel of judges chaired by Nani Indrawati stated that the Inter-Continental trademark used by the plaintiff had a difference from the trademark of the defendant.

“Based on the evidence at the trial, the plaintiff’s lawsuit must be rejected,” she said, today.

In its consideration, the panel said the plaintiff’s trademark had a difference that includes color, the placement of the letters, and the class of protected goods. Therefore, the panel explained, the use of the Inter-Continental trademark by the defendant would not cause confusion to the public.

Additionally, the judges declared that the Inter-Continental trademark listed under No.IDM000181945 owned by PT Lippo was legally valid. This, the panel added, was because the plaintiff could not prove the defendant’s bad faith in using the trademark.

“The Plaintiff can not prove the defendant’s bad faith to ride the fame in the use of the Inter-Continental trademark,” he said.

Meanwhile, the plaintiff’s attorney Budianto said they would file an appeal against the decision. “We will appeal because the judges did not consider the trademark similarity as a whole,” he said after the hearing.

Separately, the attorney of PT Lippo, Ludiyanto, said the judges had proper consideration. He claimed to be ready to face further legal proceedings if the plaintiff subsequently filed an appeal.

“Cassation is their right, we will respect it and of course we are ready to submit a counter memorandum of cassation because the decision of the judges has strengthened our client as the legitimate trademark owner,” he said.

He said the judges’ decision was reasonable considering that the trademark owned by his client was in a different class from the plaintiff’s.

“The plaintiff argument in its lawsuit is forcing its trademark as a famous trademark. With this ruling, it is proven that the plaintiff is not the first registrant of the trademark,” explained Ludiyanto.

Earlier, in the lawsuit of Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation, the Inter-Continental trademark was registered under No. IDM0001011132 at the DG of IPR on July 16, 1993, to protect goods in class 43.

The Plaintiff claimed that, with its registered trademark, it is the owner of the sole right to use the trademark in Indonesia.

Under the laws and regulations, the Inter-Continental trademark owned by the plaintiff is used to protect services in the field of hospitals and restaurants.

The Plaintiff considered that the defendant’s trademark listed under No.IDM000181945 on October 20, 2008, had similarities in its essential parts with its trademark. The Plaintiff considered that the defendant had bad faith to ride the fame of the Inter-Continental trademark registered in its name.

Ref: bisnis.com By Dewi Mayestika

By Elvani Harifaningsih
Tuesday, 01 March 2011
JAKARTA: Central Jakarta Commercial Court rejected a lawsuit filed by Eisai R & D Management Co. Ltd., a pharmaceutical company based in Japan, in a lawsuit for the cancellation of the Strocap trademark owned by a local company, PT Erela.
“The Plaintiff could not prove the argument of its lawsuit,” said Pramodhana Kumara Kusumah Atmadja, chairman of the panel of judges who examined the case of Eisai versus Erela, at the hearing for the reading of the verdict, this afternoon.

In its legal considerations, the judges were of the opinion that Eisai as the plaintiff could not prove the existence of similarity in its essential part between its Strocain trademark and Erela’s Strocap trademark.

The dominant elements of the two marks, according to the judges, were the letters s, t, r, o, c, and a. However, they added, visually, the shape of the letters and the pronunciation of the two were considered different from each other.
Meanwhile, they continued, in terms of pronunciation, the Strocain trademark owned by the plaintiff ended with the sound of the letters a and i, while the defendant’s Strocap trademark ended with the sound of the letter p, both of which produced much different sounds.

After the course of the reading of the verdict, the plaintiff’s attorney, Sani Effendy, did not comment on the verdict. “[However], we will file a cassation,” he said, today.

On the other hand, the defendant’s attorney, Ludiyanto, welcomed the decision of the judges who rejected the claim of the plaintiff. “We accept this verdict. Afterwards, we just wait and see, if they submit an appeal, we are ready to face it,” he said.
Previously, Eisai filed a lawsuit against Erela, in connection with the registration of the Strocap trademark, which was registered at the Central Jakarta Commercial Court under the registration No.83/MEREK/2010/PN.NIAGA.JKT.PST.
In the lawsuit, the company from Japan claimed to be the owner and holder of special rights for the Strocain trademark, registered both in Indonesia and internationally.

In Indonesia, the plaintiff claimed that the Strocain trademark was registered under No.388.203 dated March 28, 1997 and was renewed on February 13, 2007 under No. R00 2007 001 406, which was to protect the products of pharmaceuticals, veterinary science and health sciences, the products of food prohibited for children and the sick, plasters and bandages, supplies for patching teeth and for making artificial teeth, as well as disinfectant supplies.

However, according to the plaintiff in the lawsuit, Erela registered the Strocap trademark No. IDM000221336 on October 9, 2009, which was considered to have similarity in its essential part to the trademark owned by the company from Japan.

The trademark belonging to the defendant was registered to protect pharmaceutical supplies in the form of vitamin and mineral supplements to maintain health, freshness and vitality of the body, the products of pharmaceuticals, supplement beverages, health foods, vitamins, multivitamins, animal science and the science of hygiene, the food prohibited for medical purposes, baby food, plasters, bandage materials, and materials to patch the teeth and for making artificial teeth.

The Plaintiff argued that the use of the Strocap trademark by this defendant might create an impression on the public that the trademark and products of that company came from the plaintiff or both had close ties.

“We filed a cassation on 31 January and submitted the memorandum of cassation,” said Mansour Alwini, the attorney of Bose Corporation, in relation to case No.84/MEREK/2010/PN.NIAGA.JKT.PST, today.

Previously, the Central Jakarta Commercial Court rejected a lawsuit filed by Michelle Brownlee, a director of Bose Corporation, a company based in the United States, in relation to a mark dispute against a local businessman.
Although case No.84/MEREK/2010/PN.NIAGA.JKT.PST was investigated and decided by verstek or without the presence of the defendant, Hasan Basri, members of the panel of judges said the plaintiff could not prove the arguments of the lawsuit, regarding the cancellation of mark BOK owned by this local businessman.

In its lawsuit, the plaintiff claimed as the party who registered mark BOSE, certificate No. IDM000124327 dated November 2, 1998, and extended on November 2, 2008, to protect goods in class 09.

The plaintiff objected to the defendant’s registration of mark BOK owned by the defendant under IDM 000249310 dated May 31, 2010, for class 9, because it was deemed to have similarities with the company’s mark.

However, in the legal consideration of the decision, the panel of judges argued that, after being observed, the two marks did not have similarities, either in sound or in writing, although both marks existed in the same class.

Ref:

bisnis.com

By Elvani Harifaningsih

Source: kontan online